1

Introduction

In this modern era of rapid change and complexities, employees are the competitive edge of
any organization. But employees face various problems in their work environment due to
these changes. Stressful, depressed and dissatisfied employees would not be able to obtain
the same quality level of work and productivity as those employees with low stress and high
job satisfaction. Here we are considering few selected banks to identify the cause of their job
stress in different level of the organization. Stress often decrease the bankers’ performance,
due to a lack of administrative support from the manager, work overload and time
constrictions, the increased risk factor of the job, poor relations with the customers as well as
co-workers, and the balance between their work and their family- all of these being important
factors which determine a decrease in employee performance. Bank managers often fail to
realize the impact of stress on employee performance which ultimately results in critical
managerial dilemmas, particularly since “with excessive pressures, the job demands cannot
be met, relaxation turns to exhaustion and a sense of satisfaction replaces with the feelings of
stress, motivation sheds away and the workers start losing interest in the work and hence
performance chart shows a negative trend.” This research can be a significant implication for
retaining and maintaining the performance of the banking sector employees in today’s
impulsive environment.
 2

Objectives of the Study

The prime purpose of the study is to locate the impact of job stress in privatized banks of
Bangladesh. In the light of the main purpose, the specific purposes of the study were as
follows:

i. To identify the factors affecting employee job stress in the private commercial banks of
Bangladesh;
ii. To find out the level of job stress among the employee of the selected private
commercial banks; and
iii. To recommended suggestions to mitigate the level of stress.

Literature Review
Stress has been experienced since ancient times, but it has never been worse than it is here in
the early 21st century. Job stress is defined generally as “the harmful physical and emotional
responses that occur when the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities,
resources, or needs of the worker. Job stress can lead to poor health and even injury”
(NIOSH, 1999). Nowadays stress is responsible for more than fifty percent of all Despite this
fact, the phenomenon of stress still was not been that deeply studied. Stress is considered as
an unmanageable adverse work practice where there is no conformance between the state
perceived and the state actually desired (Moncrief et al.,1997; Rizwan et al.,2010). The right
or suitable individuals is necessary for the vigorous success of an organization. Finding the
most suitable individual is not just a question of searching someone with the obliged skills
and abilities, but the individual personality is also considered as a key component
(Michailidis & Georgiou, 2005). Employing a wrong or inappropriate individual may cost
high for the organization or even may produce an over-stressed workforce. As David (1998)
suggested both psychological and physical assessments are necessary to select the
appropriate people in the organization. Certainly, many organizations have found that the use
of business psychology is “good people management” and that has also reduced both
financial or emotional cost and improved performance (Greenberg and Baron, 2003). For the
occupational health community job stress has been proven to be a difficult issue (Wu, 2011).
 3

According to Michailidis & Georgiou (2005) “stress has been called the ‘wear and tear’ of
our body as we adjust to the continually changing environment; it has physical and emotional
effects on us and can create positive or negative feelings”. Stressors are known as causes of
stress. Moreover, stressors can be externally or internally generated or can be physical or
emotional or can be events or situations. Among them the most common stressor is change
(change in career, illness or injury, change in personal life). The distinguished causes of job
stress are numerous. As Materson (1980) has identified “causes of job stress are many like
workload, cuts in staff, work practices, long work hours, shift work, lack of supervision,
inadequate training, inappropriate working conditions, too heavy responsibilities and poor
relations with colleagues”. An individual faces stress, especially in the workplace across all
spheres of life. As Khattak K. J., (2011) has found “The workplace is potentially an
important source of stress for bankers because of the amount of time they spent in their
respective banks.” The reason behind the less performance is often stress. Therefore, in the
given circumstances, the employment of an individual could be a major source of stress
(Anderson et al., 2002). Therefore, when individuals fail to cope with stress and face pressure
as a result of various states of their occupation, it results into burnout. Although stress is
always being discussed in a negative perspective, it also has some positive influence.
According to Golembiewski et al., (1986) positive stress or healthy stress is known as
‘eustress’. Moderate stresses (healthy) offers employee new awareness, opportunity and new
perspective to gain or complete the task (Xie and Johns, 1995). At times stress can also be act
as motivators for employees for achieving their best. Conversely, according to Quick et al.,
(1986) and Xie and Johns (1995) negative stress is known as ‘distress’ and it occurs when
one is lagging or stagnated or feel depressed, distrust and unable to cope up with the
overwhelming work demand and pressure. As increasing evidence (Jick and Mitz, 1985;
Lazarus, 1991; Ismail et al., 2009) suggests high levels of stress adversely affect physical as
well as psychological health of an employee which eventually comes up with some negative
results like absenteeism, high turnover, low commitment, low performance, motional
frustration and even a career change. For the job environment, occupational stress is
considered as harmful factor. However Physiological stress is viewed in the form of Muscle
cramps, migraine, back pain, head ache, disturbance of sleep, heart palpitations, routine
disorder of drinking and eating, insomnia, gastrointestinal disorders, coronary heart failure,
 4

fatigue and exhaustion (Gaither et al., 2008, Lawrence and Kacmar, 2012, Brief and Weis,
2002). Burnout, identified by Michailidis and Georgiou (2005) as these happen when we are
faced with constant stress (due to the enduring features of our social, personal and
organizational life circumstances), with no escape and can lead to exhaustion”. Burnout may
be injurious or even dangerous both physically and mentally. People try to cope up with
stress in a different way in a different situation. An interesting view was expressed by
Michailidis and Georgiou (2005) that “coping with stress is multidimensional, and depends
not only on situational factors, but also on the appraisal of the situation by the individual
under stress”. According to Krumm (2001) both organizational and individual circumstances
should take into consideration for stress management. Competent and committed employees
can enhance the productivity. On the other hand, frequently employee turnover can
deteriorate the dedicated emotions along with skills in the concern area. Some employees can
stay physically a prolong time in the disliked job than venture into the unknown. Often
employees leave mentally, even though they show up to work regularly (Bluedorn, 1982; Lee
& Maurer, 1997; RahmanS., Uddin M.K. &Akther S., 2008). The volunteer turnover of a
competent employee is a huge loss to the organization monetarily (sustained sales loss,
training and recruitment cost loss and cost of electing the new profile). This propensity to
leave is also a result of reduced job satisfaction and low organizational commitment. Lower
stress results in eventually meeting of job expectations and higher organizational
commitment which ultimately lowers the propensity to leave leave (Shaikh A. A. Akram M.,
Rizwan M., Kousar S.& Malik M. (2013).

Research Gap
To develop this paper, we have researched a few published articles about the factors affecting
the employee’s’ job stress in the private commercial bank of Bangladesh. Although few
activities have been done regarding this fact with some fruitful recommendation but there are
no factors that are involved with the level of the employees’ job stress. In this study we will
find out the lower and the mid-level employees job stress in the selected private commercial
bank of Bangladesh which will be done by the non-probability method.
 5

Methodology

Nature of the Study

The current study is partly descriptive and partly exploratory in nature. Primary and
secondary data are used to prepare the study.

Population
The employees working in private commercial banks have been selected as population of the
study.

Sampling Technique
The population for this study includes the banking personnel from 5 selected private
commercial banks in Bangladesh. A convenience sampling technique was used to select the
organizations as well as employees of those organizations. Both married and unmarried
employees have taken into consideration to understand their stress level at workplace. The
positions of the employees were categorized into top level, mid-level, and lower level.
Respondents were assured that information will be kept confidential and used only for
academic purpose.

Data collection
A structured questionnaire has been prepared to collect information from the employees.
Likert 5-point scale has been used to record the responses.

Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents

The study represents that the Most of the respondents fall in executive group, 53.3%. Mid-
level consists of 30%(n=30) and rest of the respondents is from top level. In terms of gender
level Most of the respondents are male, and the percentage of it is 73.3% where female is
26.7%. from the study we can also determine that the age of the respondents is the maximum
in the 25-35, 50%. 36-45 is 16.7%. 46-55 is 10%. Above 55 is 16.7% and rest is below 25
years of age. Now, in terms of education level, the percentage of the bachelor degree holder
respondents is 20%. Master’s is 73.3% and rest is the PhD holder. In the family type level,
we can see that the percentage of respondents who lives in a nuclear family is 66.7%. Joint
family is 33.3%. In the children level, the respondents who has no children is 26.7% and the
 6

rest respondents have children. In the experience level, most of the respondents’ experience
is below 5 years, 46.7%. 5-10 is 13.3%. 11-15 is 10%. 16-20 is 13.3% and above 20 years is
16.7%. And in the salary level, the respondents who get bellow 30,000 Tk is the most,
46.7%. 30,000 Tk to 40,000 Tk is 3.3%, 40,000 Tk to 50,000 Tk is 16.7%. 50,000 Tk to
60,000 Tk is 20% and above 60,000 Tk is 13.3%.

Table: Respondents’ Socio Demographic Data

Variables Frequency Percent
1. Designation
Executive 16 53.3%
Mid-level 9 30%
Top-level 5 16.7%
Total 30 100%
2. Gender
Male 22 73.3%
Female 8 26.7%
Total 30 100%

3. Age
below 25 12 6.7%
25–35 15 50%
36–45 5 16.7%
46–55 3 10%
Above 55 5 16.7%
Total 30 100%
4. Education
Bachelor 6 20%
Master’s 22 73.3%
PhD 2 6.7%
Total 30 100%
5. Family type
Nuclear 20 66.7%
Joint 10 33.3%
Total 30 100%
6. Children
No Children 8 26.7%
 7

Have Children 22 73.3%

Total 30 100%
7. Dependent
No Dependent 3 10%
Have Dependent 27 90%
Total 30 100%
8. Experience
bellow 5 years 14 46.7%
5 to 10 years 4 13.3%
11 to 15 years 3 10%
16 to 20 years 4 13.3%
Above 20 years 5 16.7%
Total 30 100%
9. Salary
Bellow 30,000tk 14 46.7%
30,000tk to 40,000tk 1 3.3%
40,000tk to 50,000tk 5 16.7%
50,000 to 60,000tk 6 20%
Above 60,000tk 4 13.3%
Total 30 100%

Reliability test
Table 1: Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.585 24

Data Analyzing Technique

The data were analyzed through SPSS 15.0 where questionnaire data was transferred for
generating required statistical analysis. ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘Disagree’ and
‘Strongly disagree’ were coded as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Frequency distribution, Mean,
Standard deviation, Cronbach’s Alpha and Factor Analysis are used to analyze the
questionnaire’ data.
 8

Factorability Test
The Kaiser Meyer Olkin is the measure of sampling adequacy, which varies between 0 and 1.
The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is the test for null hypothesis that the correlation matrix has
an identity matrix. Taking this into consideration, these tests provide the minimum standard
to proceed for Factor Analysis.

Factor Analysis
Table 2: KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
.256

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 354.042

df 276
Sig. .001

The Brtlett’s test of Sphericity (highly significant, p<0.001) inadequate the factor analysis is
valid. As p<α, we were therefore reject the null hypothesis. Hence, Factor Analysis is
considered as an appropriate technique for further analysis of data.

Results and Discussion

Principal Component Analysis

In this study, the value for communalities using principal component analysis (PCA) ranged
from 0.363 to 0.821. from the result of the commonality, the item, having commonality=
0.363, was ruled out due to low commonality. Kaiser (1974) suggests that item with factor
loading and commonalities are less than 0.40 should be removed. All these values show
factor analysis has extracted good quantity of variance in the items.

Communalities table from spss result required

Eigenvalues
 9

Factor analysis was rerun after rejecting that item to get eigenvalues for each component on
the data and six factors with eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination
explained 60.955% of the total variance. It is pertinent to mention that eigenvalue ≥ 1.0 is
sufficient explanations of constructs in this study.

Table 3: Total Variance Explained

Componen
t Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
% of % of
Total Variance Cumulative % Total Variance Cumulative %
1 3.455 14.396 14.396 3.455 14.396 14.396
2 2.736 11.400 25.797 2.736 11.400 25.797
3 2.377 9.904 35.701 2.377 9.904 35.701
4 2.146 8.942 44.643 2.146 8.942 44.643
5 1.996 8.318 52.961 1.996 8.318 52.961
6 1.919 7.994 60.955 1.919 7.994 60.955
--- 1.538 6.407 ---
--- 1.418 5.910 ---
24 .014 .058 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotated Component Matrix

The result of the rotated component matrix represents the component matrix represent the
rotated factor loading, which are the correlation of the variables with each of the extracted
factor. Here, variables having coefficient above 0.40 have been taken. The component
column represents the rotated factors that have been extracted out of the total factor. Each of
the variables is highly loaded in once factor and less loaded towards the other factors. To
identify the variables, included in each factor, the variable with the maximum value in each
row selected to be part of the respective factor.

Table 4: Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q1 .746
Q2 .837
 10

Q3 .475
Q4
Q5 .555
Q6 .505
Q7 .577
Q8 .542
Q9 .656
Q10 .473
Q11 .477
Q12 .702
Q13 .430
Q14 .682
Q15 .659
Q16 .752
Q17 .429
Q18 .548
Q19 .720
Q20 .535
Q21 .850
Q22 .813
Q23 .504
Q24 .785

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 13 iterations.
Factor Leveling
The variable that have been included into each core factor have been leveled as under (table
3). Thus, after rotation, factor 1 accounts for 14.396% of the variance; factor 2 accounts for
11.4% of the variance; factor 3 accounts for 9.90% of the variance; factor 4 accounts for
8.94% of the variance; factor 5 is accounts for 8.32% of the variance; and factor 6 is accounts
for 8% of the variance.

Table 5: Factor analysis with significant variables

Factor Factor importance (% Loadin Variables included in the factor
s variance explained) g
F1 Burn out (14.396%) .505 I am unable to use my training and expertise in my
role and that’s annoying.
.542 Clint’s behavior make me feel angry
.473 Setting time limit puts me under pressure to
 11

complete the task.

.477 Frequently changing situations are irritating.
.659 Leave is not enough
.548 Salary in not sufficient
.535 I feel isolated at work.
.504 I have dependence of my parents.
F2 Job satisfaction (11.4%) .837 Sometimes my responsibilities in the workplace
become so irritating.
.702 I feel low while I am in the office.
.430 I cannot do much more than what I have been
assigned.
F3 Turnover intention .746 I have been given too much responsibility.
(9.90%) .577 My family and friends complain that I do not spend
time with them due to the heavy demands of my
work role.

.429 Sometimes there is no time limit to leave the

office.
.785 If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I
would leave this organization.
F4 Work pressure (8.94%) .656 Other employees do not give time and attention to
my role requirements.
.720 I am not able to satisfy the demands of clients and
others, since these are conflicting with one another.
F5 Work life balance .682 I have the intention to switch the job.
(8.32%) .752 I have lot of family responsibilities.
.850 I need to give more time to my children’s
education.

F6 Organizational policy .475 I feel that the amount of Work I have to do is more
(8%) than it should be.
.555 I have so much work that I do not have time to
think about maintaining quality.
.813 Partial character of the superior in terms of
promotion.

So, in terms of the factor 1, the significant number of variables fallen in this factor. There are
8 variables and the factor is labeled as “Burn out” involving the Q6, Q8, Q10, Q11, Q15, Q18,
Q19, Q23. Factor 2 is ‘Job Satisfaction’, which involves Q2, Q12, and Q13. In factor 3, ‘Turnover
Ration’ involves Q1, Q7, Q17, Q24. Factor 4, ‘ Work pressure’ involving Q9, Q19. Factor 5, ‘Work
 12

life balance’ involves Q14, Q16, Q21 and factor 6, ‘Organizational policy’ involving Q3, Q5,
Q22.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The primary objective of this study was Factors Affecting Employee Job Stress on all level of
bank employees in private commercial banks of Bangladesh. It is anticipated that research
information provided by the current study will prove useful to the banking industry to reduce
the stress level of their employees. The results of the factor analysis revealed five dimensions
of the impact of job stress based on factor loadings such as - burnout, job satisfaction,
turnover intention, work pressure, work life balance and organizational policies, where
burnout plays a vital role affected by job stress of employees in privatized banks of
Bangladesh. If these stress factors are addressed positively at the work place, overall stress
level may be reduced significantly. To get more accurate results, one should consider the
total process with a large number of samples. These limitations pave the way to future
studies. An interesting avenue for future research could be a detailed study of job stress in
both foreign and public banks in Bangladesh. In addition, a comparative study on causes of
stress among different professionals can also be executed.

Suggestions for Future Research

The limitations of the study may open up the opportunities for studies of the additional
arenas. Future study should include the extended coverage of sample size, focus on inclusion
of diverse geographical areas (other metropolitan cities and countries) and sample selection
must be expanded across public sector banks and other diverse institutions like health
services sector, IT industry, hotel and catering industry, education sector etc. It will enhance
the applicability and generalize ability of the findings for fruitful results.
 13

References
Anderson E.S., Coffey S.B., &Byerly T.R. (2002) Formal organizational initiatives and
informal workplace practices: links to work-family conflict and Job-Related outcomes.
Journal of Management 28(6), 787-810.
Babak M., Shabbir H. &Niaz M. (2010) the relationship between stress and work
performance in an industrial environment of Faisalabad district. Pakistan Journal of
Life and Social Science, 8 (1), 68-72.
Bluedorn, A.C. (1982) A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human
Relations35(2), 135-153.
Brief A. P. & Weiss H. (2002) Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace. Annual
Review of Psychology53, 279-307.
Canadian Mental Health Association (2004). Employee assistance programs. Retreived
February 10, 2017 from http://cmhanl.ca/education/publications/dcs/eap.php
Canadian Mental Health Association (2005). Stress in the Workplace: A General Overview
of the Causes, the Effects, and the Solutions February 10, 2017 from
http://www.cmhanl.ca/pdf/Work%20Place%20Stress.pdf
Chiang F. F. T., Birtch T. A. & Kwan H. K. (2010) The moderating roles of job control and
work-life balance practices on employee stress in the hotel and catering industry.
International Journal of Hospitality Management29, 25-32.
Cooper D. & Schindler P. (2001) Business Research Methods. McGraw-Hill, Sydney .
 14

Creswell J.W. (1994) Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Sage
Publications, London.
Cronbach L. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika16(3),
297-334.
Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement,
2nd Ed. (pp. 443-507). Washington: American Council on Education.
David, M. (1998) Motivational and Stress Management. Harvard Business School
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Fairbrother K. & Warn J. (2003) Workplace dimensions, stress and job satisfaction. Journal
of Managerial Psychology18(1), 0268-3946.doi: DOI 10.1108/02683940310459565
Fruchter B. (1967) Introduction to Factor Analysis. Affiliated East West Press, New Delhi.
Gaither C. A., Doucette W. R. & Pederson C. A. (2008) A modified model of pharmacist’
job stress: the role of organizational, extra-role, and individual factors on work-related
outcomes. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 4(3), 231-243.
Golembiewski R.T., Muzenrider R.F. & Stevenson J.G. (1986) Stress in Organizations:
Toward a Phase Model of Burnout. Praeger, New York.
Greenberg J. & Baron A.R. (2003) Behavior in Organization. Prentice Hall international, Inc,
New Jersey.
Grimshaw, J. (1999). Employment and health: Psychosocial stress in the workplace. London:
The British Library.
Ismail A., Yao A. &Yunus N. K. Y. (2009) Relationship between occupational stress and job
satisfaction: an empirical study in Malaysia. The Romanian Economic Journal 34(4), 3-
29.
Jick T.D. & Mitz L.F. (1985) Sex differences in work stress. Academy of Management
Review 10(3), 408-420.
Kahn, Robert L.; Wolfe, Donald M.; Quinn, Robert P.; Snoek, J. Diedrick; Rosenthal, Robert
A. (1964) Organizational Stress: studies in Role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 470.
Kaiser H.F. (1958) Thevarimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psycometrica
23, 187-200.
 15

Khattak K. J., Khan A. M., Haq U. A., Arif M. &Minhas A. A. (2011) Occupational stress
and burnout in Pakistan’s banking sector. African Journal of Business Management
5(3), 810-817.